Ni un hombre más

Ni un hombre más

Charly was abandoned right after birth in a convent. He is not aware of who the couple who are about to arrive and dine at the inn, actually are. Karla is about to show up with a dead man and one hundred dollars in the trunk of her car.

Charly was abandoned right after birth in a convent. He is not aware of who the couple who are about to arrive and dine at the inn, actually are. Karla is about to show up with a dead man and one hundred dollars in the trunk of her car. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Ni un hombre más torrent reviews

Barnaby G (gb) wrote: Only watched the first ten minutes of this and didn't laugh once, yet from the start it was trying so hard to be funny. It failed. It was desperate. A complete turd of a film. I'm positive I made the right choice in turning it off.

Graham B (ag) wrote: A poor script acted terribly. Cliche ridden characters with flimsy arcs. Highly unoriginal. Nothing to see here.

mary h (br) wrote: loved it one of my favorite movies from when I was a youngster

Abby P (ca) wrote: If you were aware of your death and how it would come about, would you live differently? Stranger Than Fiction is a 2006 film by Marc Foster that deals with these existential questions in a light, comedic fashion. This film follows the life of an average, dull IRS worker by the name of Harold Crick, played by Will Ferrell. The movie starts out with a brief narration of Harold Crick's meticulous daily routines; counting minutes to the bus stop and counting tooth brush strokes. Every deep though and every action is narrated by some unknown female. However the movie's plot begins to escalate when Harold starts hearing the voice of a narrator, describing his very actions. This awareness causes Harold to develop fear and paranoia. While this unusual change e, another character comes into play that does likewise. Ana Pascal, a woman Harold was suppose to audit for his job, soon becomes the prominent love interest in his life. With these two new changes, the narration and the romance, Harold's character begins to develop from his dull drabby personality to a more lively and adventurous one. Harold sees several doctors and therapists about the absurd voice he hears but they just brush it off as being a simple schizophrenic symptoms. Harold is reluctant to believe that, but it is not until he hears a key line that he realizes that he is infact not schizophrenic. ""little did he know... would result in his imminent death" This line plucks and uncomfortable chord within Harold because he realizes that the voice is omniscient, which concludes it must be from an outer source. Harold then goes on a quest to figure out who the author is that is narrating this voice, and comes up with a plan to try and convince the voice to not kill him. Ferrells well known status adds to the emotional roller coaster that this movie is; without a well known comedic actor like him being the protagonist the movie could easily have been dark and morbid. His performance along with the innocence of the dramatic genre tug the viewers emotions. The viewer is not accustomed to seeing this face being put through such torture; therefore causing the viewers to root for this underdog, new to harm. Farrell also makes good use of scenes in which he does not have lines; his facial expressions and mannerisms portray what they need to perfectly. The use of music to assist in the plot is also brilliant throughout this film. Punk music is used to describe Ana Pascal. The viewer is aware of this because when Ana is introduced in her bakery, light punk music is playing. The punk music serves as a contrast to the orderly technological sounds that occur whenever Crick is on scene. However as Crick becomes more aware of who he is and the larger story he is apart of the music changes as well. The music softens into a more melodious sound.Overall the movie was well done for its specific purpose. I however prefer more dark, heart-wrenching tales. I would say on the objective level this film gets ? stars, but on my personal subjective level it would get ? stars.

Cameron J (ca) wrote: Well, it would appear that Barry Levinson is finally calling Rain Man back into action, hoping to use his autistic super-brain to uncover the truth about aliens. Wow, I just kind of made this film's premise sound dumber somehow, but don't worry, people, because this film isn't actually about Rain Man, even though plenty of critics would argue that this film, like Raymond Babbitt, is pretty retarded, except without the glimpses of genius. Hey, I think that this film is alright, but it's hard to look at it and not start calling "Jurassic Park" into question, if you weren't already questioning "Jurassic Park" more than Michael Crichton would want you to before seeing this film, that is. Yeah, Michael Crichton would come up with some crazy sci-fi stories, and you would think that the reception on this film, alone, would remind people that the primary force behind the success of "Jurassic Park" was Steven Spielberg. Well, in all fairness, no one saw this film, thus, no warning was pronounced enough to prevent "The 13th Warrior", "Timeline" and 2006's "The Andromeda Strain" after this flop... which followed such other critical flops as "Congo", "Disclosure", "Rising Sun", and "The Carey Treatment". Wow, Crichton just couldn't catch a break, at least outside of "Jurassic Park", and that would be a bigger shame if he really didn't come up with the best stories, as this film will tell you. Don't get me wrong, again, I like this film, but it has problems, and not all of them are the doing of Crichton. Very much a late-'90s type of thriller, this film juggles steady intensity and pretty fluffy lighter areas, and not always as organically as it probably should, watering down effectiveness by jarring from relatively serious moments into very lighter moments with a disconcerting lack of delicacy, but not so severely that the effectiveness of the harder and fluffier moments is as diluted as it is by unevenness alone. No, people, the tonal flaw that really does a number on the final product's compellingness is subtlety issues, both within the fluffier moments that get to be kind of cheesy, and within the more relatively serious moments which would be more striking if their atmosphere wasn't so overblown on the whole, challenging the final product's weight with overambition that is just as questionable as the genericism. On top of being uneven and overblown, the film also suffers from the common late-'90s commercial thriller flaw of being pretty trope-heavy, hitting familiar beat after familiar beat until reaching predictability that film this reliant on mystery cannot afford to have. Granted, some of the most important areas in plotting are hard to completely predict, but the areas that are formulaic are hard to deny and hamstring this potentially potent psychological thriller, and yet, as familiar as this film's characters and story are, I can't help but feel as though more needs to be said, because you're given only so much beyond the bare minimum of background on the driving forces of this thriller. The film doesn't take as much time as it should to flesh out exposition, and that's a serious shame, considering that the final product, at just under 130 minutes, has more than enough time to build developmental weight, whose limiting leaves the film to struggling to run out the clock through excess and repetitious material that further dilutes steam, until you're left with only so many thrills to obscure the fact that this film's story is relatively simple. I'm going to be honest, I don't really see why this film is as harshly criticized as it is, but at the same time, the flaws are near-impossible to miss, and no matter how much this film proved to be reasonably effective to me in certain areas, the uneven, unsubtle, undercooked and dragging telling of a thin story drive the film, not simply short of potential, but into underwhelmingness. Nevertheless, the film is still not as messy as they say, being decidedly sloppier than it probably should be, to be sure, but with enough compensation to be a decent thriller, as well as a decent showcase of decent music. The great Elliot Goldenthal certainly contributes plenty of compositions to this film, but it's kind of hard to notice, as many of Goldenthal's pieces are about as too subtle for their own good as they are too formulaic for their own good, and yet, when Goldenthal pronounces the presence of his tastes, he commands, gracing his musical touches with a tasteful minimalism and light dynamicity that makes the lighter moments rather lively, and the more somberly intense moments, well, about as haunting as they can be without having directorial strength be quite as potent as musical strength. No, as I'll touch more upon later, directorial strengths do a lot to get the film by, but receive plenty of help from Goldenthal's efforts, which aren't too outstanding, but almost stronger than it should be, considering the limited weight of this film. Actually, while Michael Crichton's story concept is kind of thin in certain areas, weight is diluted most by flaws in the execution of Crichton's vision, which, on paper, has more potential than plenty of people give it credit for, carrying a mysterious sci-fi mythology that is pretty intriguing, with subtle layers and depths which are not celebrated as much as they should be, but are still considerable enough in concept to ignite a moderate degree of immediate compellingness. This isn't exactly genius sci-fi, but the film's concept is sharper than its execution, which is still not too shabby, because as messy as Barry Levinson's directorial efforts are in plenty of places, there are highlights in storytelling thoughtfulness which capture the claustrophobic intensity of this film, while livelier areas in storytelling leave entertainment value to stand as the only consistent strength in this somewhat fluffy thriller. The film has, not necessarily strong moments, but reasonably effective areas that I really do wish were more recurring, yet still stand as hard to deny, at least to me, and while that's not enough for the final product to come all that close to its full potential, it keeps engagement value alive and well for the most part, though not consistent. The film may be consistently entertaining to some degree, but the only aspect that is consistently compelling in this film is the acting, which, even then, is too underwritten for the performers to be excellent, but not so underwritten that this talented cast doesn't deliver on both distinguished charisma and colorful chemistry, both of which do a lot in breathing some life into this thriller which goes anchored by its characters. Really, there are strong aspects to this film, it's just that they're not quite as recurring as they should be, considering the quantity and magnitude of the shortcomings, which are ultimately not enough to prevent entertainment value and a reasonable degree of intrigue from keeping the film going as decent, even if they are still enough to hold the final product back as kind of underwhelming. Overall, the film's tone gets to be uneven, as well as rather overblown with moderately cheesy subtlety issues that, alongside formulaic storytelling, undercooked expository depth and a repetitiously overlong runtime, emphasize natural shortcomings enough for the final product to collapse into underwhelmingness, but not so deeply that strong score work, an intriguing story concept, sometimes compelling and consistently lively direction, and charismatic performances aren't enough to carry Barry Levinson's "Sphere" as a heavily flawed, but ultimately adequately engaging and highly entertaining thriller. 2.5/5 - Fair

Charles S (ru) wrote: guy protects elephants....

Megan S (ag) wrote: Never hold a baby's face near an open pin.

Jack B (jp) wrote: nice cultural comaparisons

Kathleen H (it) wrote: This movie is a classic, nothing like killer rats to [b][i][u]kill [/u][/i][/b]the day ha ha ha!!!!!

Craig T (nl) wrote: Ulu Grosbard directs Robert De Niro and Robert Duvall in a murder mystery based in the 1940's. It centers loosely around the Black Dahlia murders, deals with the political themes of the church, and also shows the contrasting lives of two brothers. It has the look and finished touches of the 40's. It certainly has the talent. What sets up as a sure shot winner ultimately takes the easy way out and we're stuck wondering why. I want to know what happened here because this could have been a classic. The slow pace and mottled events takes on no real shape. It is simply not interesting enough for its potential. The film has a story that even it can't stick with, it has no heart. It is as passive of a movie as you can find. Duvall chums up some action with Charles Durning (he is one of the stand out features) and gets us focusing on their next move but it never really takes place. We get introduced to some of the sketchy call girls but that is a disappointing avenue as well. De Niro never shows us the end of his patience with the corruption he finds himself surrounded by and we just get to see a dusty aftermath somewhere in the desert. While I can only really appreciate the time that both Bobs shared on screen together discussing the diluted plot details, the rest is choppy and the real mystery remains: how on earth could this formula get fouled up? (D)

Maham S (ag) wrote: mixture of everthing

Tom M (gb) wrote: An above average 50s western with strong performances and an air of believability. Cooper is solid as his typical stoic self while Lancaster is a bit too over the top to be taken all that seriously but is enjoyable nonetheless. Except, of course, for his stupid grin. Every time he flashes it I imagined what a solid blow would do to his teeth. Anyway, the two of them move between buddy adventurers and greedy rivals throughout the picture, with the tone transitioning from light comedy to heavy drama accordingly.For the time its particularly sure footed and it has aged better than most its peers. While it gets too caught up in double and triple crosses and whos-really-with-who mischievousness toward the end to really bring home any solid character development, it's its avoidance of the eras many pitfalls and cliches that make it stand out.The film's setting and style would later be aped repeatedly in the 'spaghetti western' subgenre, though rarely with the same ease and effectiveness.

Daniel S (nl) wrote: A very nice story about a beloved collie. This movie is a classic and should not be missed however there are several parts that will make even the most mature people cry.

Caleb M (ca) wrote: While Blood Diner has a lot of fun going as over-the-top as it possibly can, it never manages to be as funny or entertaining as it is excessive. There's a lot of fun to be had here: talking brains, vomiting truckers, topless cheerleaders, an ancient Egyptian goddess and enough dismembered limbs to fill a warehouse, yet it never comes together in just the right way.

Dan S (ag) wrote: I thought I had seen this, & remembered it being bad. Watched it with Liv, it's kinda cute.

Josh O (br) wrote: It was alright. Kind of one-note.